**Last updated:** 2019-03-31

**Checks:** 5 1

**Knit directory:** `fiveMinuteStats/analysis/`

This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.2.0). The *Report* tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The *Past versions* tab lists the development history.

`wflow_publish`

to commit the R Markdown file and build the HTML.

`set.seed(12345)`

was run prior to running the code in the R Markdown file. Setting a seed ensures that any results that rely on randomness, e.g. subsampling or permutations, are reproducible.

Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility. The version displayed above was the version of the Git repository at the time these results were generated.

Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results (you can use `wflow_publish`

or `wflow_git_commit`

). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated:

```
Ignored files:
Ignored: .Rhistory
Ignored: .Rproj.user/
Ignored: analysis/.Rhistory
Ignored: analysis/bernoulli_poisson_process_cache/
Untracked files:
Untracked: _workflowr.yml
Untracked: analysis/CI.Rmd
Untracked: analysis/gibbs_structure.Rmd
Untracked: analysis/libs/
Untracked: analysis/results.Rmd
Untracked: analysis/shiny/tester/
Untracked: docs/MH_intro_files/
Untracked: docs/citations.bib
Untracked: docs/hmm_files/
Untracked: docs/libs/
Untracked: docs/shiny/tester/
Unstaged changes:
Modified: analysis/BF_and_pvalue.Rmd
Modified: analysis/CI_conditional_coverage.Rmd
Modified: analysis/Importance_sampling.Rmd
Modified: analysis/LR_and_BF.Rmd
Modified: analysis/LR_error.Rmd
Modified: analysis/MH-examples1.Rmd
Modified: analysis/MH_intro.Rmd
Modified: analysis/_site.yml
Modified: analysis/approx_wright_fisher_model.Rmd
Modified: analysis/asymptotic_normality_mle.Rmd
Modified: analysis/bayes_beta_binomial.Rmd
Modified: analysis/bayes_conjugate.Rmd
Modified: analysis/bayes_conjugate_normal_mean.Rmd
Modified: analysis/bayes_independent.Rmd
Modified: analysis/bayes_multiclass.Rmd
Modified: analysis/bernoulli_poisson_process.Rmd
Modified: analysis/beta.Rmd
Deleted: analysis/chunks.R
Modified: analysis/citations.bib
Modified: analysis/decision_theory_bayes_rule.Rmd
Modified: analysis/decisions_costs_intro.Rmd
Modified: analysis/dirichlet.Rmd
Modified: analysis/ebnm_normal.Rmd
Modified: analysis/gibbs1.Rmd
Modified: analysis/gibbs2.Rmd
Modified: analysis/gibbs_structure_simple.Rmd
Modified: analysis/hmm.Rmd
Modified: analysis/index.Rmd
Modified: analysis/integral.Rmd
Modified: analysis/intro_to_em.Rmd
Modified: analysis/intro_to_mixture_models.Rmd
Modified: analysis/inverse_transform_sampling.Rmd
Modified: analysis/is_simple.Rmd
Modified: analysis/likelihood_combining_independent.Rmd
Modified: analysis/likelihood_do_dont.Rmd
Modified: analysis/likelihood_function.Rmd
Modified: analysis/likelihood_ratio_simple_continuous_data.Rmd
Modified: analysis/likelihood_ratio_simple_models.Rmd
Modified: analysis/loglikelihood.Rmd
Modified: analysis/markov_chains_discrete_intro.Rmd
Modified: analysis/markov_chains_discrete_stationary_dist.Rmd
Modified: analysis/markov_chains_time_reversibility.Rmd
Modified: analysis/model.Rmd
Modified: analysis/mvnorm.Rmd
Modified: analysis/normal_markov_chain.Rmd
Modified: analysis/poisson_process_time_dependent_thinning.Rmd
Modified: analysis/pvalue_difficult_calibrate_example.Rmd
Modified: analysis/shiny_binomial_example.Rmd
Modified: analysis/shiny_normal_example.Rmd
Modified: analysis/simple_nonconjugate.Rmd
Modified: analysis/simulating_discrete_chains_1.Rmd
Modified: analysis/simulating_discrete_chains_2.Rmd
Modified: analysis/stationary_distribution.Rmd
Modified: analysis/summarize_interpret_posterior.Rmd
Modified: analysis/wilks.Rmd
Modified: analysis/wright_fisher_model.Rmd
Modified: fiveMinuteStats.Rproj
```

Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.

These are the previous versions of the R Markdown and HTML files. If you’ve configured a remote Git repository (see `?wflow_git_remote`

), click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view them.

File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
---|---|---|---|---|

html | 34bcc51 | John Blischak | 2017-03-06 | Build site. |

Rmd | 5fbc8b5 | John Blischak | 2017-03-06 | Update workflowr project with wflow_update (version 0.4.0). |

Rmd | 391ba3c | John Blischak | 2017-03-06 | Remove front and end matter of non-standard templates. |

html | fb0f6e3 | stephens999 | 2017-03-03 | Merge pull request #33 from mdavy86/f/review |

html | c3b365a | John Blischak | 2017-01-02 | Build site. |

Rmd | 67a8575 | John Blischak | 2017-01-02 | Use external chunk to set knitr chunk options. |

Rmd | 5ec12c7 | John Blischak | 2017-01-02 | Use session-info chunk. |

Rmd | 3bb3b73 | mbonakda | 2016-02-24 | add two mixture model vignettes + merge redundant info in markov chain vignettes |

Rmd | d7cd231 | mbonakda | 2016-02-06 | cleanup typos + compile html |

Rmd | 8f83337 | jnovembre | 2016-02-04 | Addiing poisson_process with time dept thinning example, and move lin eq sectio in markov_chains_discrete_stationary |

Rmd | c8c677b | jnovembre | 2016-01-31 | Polish eigen results |

Rmd | bb814ef | jnovembre | 2016-01-31 | Initial commit |

This vignette builds on the Introduction to Discrete Markov chains vignette. It assumes an understanding of matrix multiplication, matrix powers, and eigendecomposition. We also do not explain the notion of an ergodic Markov chain (but we hope to add a vignette on this soon!).

The stationary distribution of a Markov chain is an important feature of the chain. One of the ways is using an eigendecomposition. The eigendecomposition is also useful because it suggests how we can quickly compute matrix powers like \(P^n\) and how we can assess the rate of convergence to a stationary distribution.

As part of the definition of a Markov chain, there is some probability distribution on the states at time \(0\). Each time step the distribution on states evolves - some states may become more likely and others less likely and this is dictated by \(P\). The *stationary distribution* of a Markov chain describes the distribution of \(X_t\) after a sufficiently long time that the distribution of \(X_t\) does not change any longer. To put this notion in equation form, let \(\pi\) be a column vector of probabilities on the states that a Markov chain can visit. Then, \(\pi\) is the stationary distribution if it has the property \[\pi^T= \pi^T P.\]

Not all Morkov chains have a stationary distribution but for some classes of probability transition matrix (those defining *ergodic* Markov chains), a stationary distribution is guaranteed to exist.

In Sheldon Ross’s Introduction to Probability Models, he has an example (4.3) of a Markov Chain for modeling Gary’s mood. Gary alternates between 3 state: Cheery (\(X=1\)), So-So (\(X=2\)), or Glum (\(X=3\)). Here we input the \(P\) matrix given by Ross and we input an abitrary initial probability matrix.

```
# Define prob transition matrix
# (note matrix() takes vectors in column form so there is a transpose here to switch col's to row's)
P=t(matrix(c(c(0.5,0.4,0.1),c(0.3,0.4,0.3),c(0.2,0.3,0.5)),nrow=3))
# Check sum across = 1
apply(P,1,sum)
```

`[1] 1 1 1`

```
# Definte initial probability vector
x0=c(0.1,0.2,0.7)
# Check sums to 1
sum(x0)
```

`[1] 1`

The stationary distribution has the property \(\pi^T= \pi^T P\)

A brute-force hack to finding the stationary distribution is simply to take the transition matrix to a high power and then extract out any row.

```
pi_bru <- (P^100)[1,]
pi_bru
```

`[1] 7.888609e-31 1.606938e-40 1.000000e-100`

We can test if the resulting vector is a stationary distribution by assessing if the resulting vector statisfies \(\pi^{T}=pi^{T}P\) (i.e. \(pi^{T}-pi^{T}P - = 0\)).

`pi_bru - pi_bru%*%P`

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 3.944305e-31 -3.155444e-31 -7.888609e-32
```

As we can see up to some very small errors, for this example, our numerical solution checks out.

Note that the equation \(\pi^T P=\pi^T\) implies that the vector \(\pi\) is a left eigenvector of P with eigenvalue equal to 1 (Recall \(xA=\lambda x\) where \(x\) is a row vector is definition of a left eigenvector, as opposed to the more standard right eigenvector \(Ax=\lambda x\)). In what follows, we use eigenvector functions in R to extract out the solution.

```
library(MASS)
# Get the eigenvectors of P, note: R returns right eigenvectors
r=eigen(P)
rvec=r$vectors
# left eigenvectors are the inverse of the right eigenvectors
lvec=ginv(r$vectors)
# The eigenvalues
lam<-r$values
# Two ways of checking the spectral decomposition:
## Standard definition
rvec%*%diag(lam)%*%ginv(rvec)
```

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.5 0.4 0.1
[2,] 0.3 0.4 0.3
[3,] 0.2 0.3 0.5
```

```
## With left eigenvectors (trivial chang)
rvec%*%diag(lam)%*%lvec
```

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.5 0.4 0.1
[2,] 0.3 0.4 0.3
[3,] 0.2 0.3 0.5
```

`lam `

`[1] 1.00000000 0.34142136 0.05857864`

We see the first eigenvalue is \(1\) and so the first left eigenvector, suitably normalized, should contain the stationary distribution:

```
pi_eig<-lvec[1,]/sum(lvec[1,])
pi_eig
```

`[1] 0.3387097 0.3709677 0.2903226`

`sum(pi_eig)`

`[1] 1`

`pi_eig %*% P`

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.3387097 0.3709677 0.2903226
```

And we see the procedure checks out.

As a side-note: We can also obtain the left eigenvectors as the transposes of the right eigenvectors of t(P)

```
r<-eigen(t(P))
V<-r$vectors
lam<-r$values
V%*%diag(lam)%*%ginv(V)
```

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.5 0.3 0.2
[2,] 0.4 0.4 0.3
[3,] 0.1 0.3 0.5
```

```
# Note how we are pulling columns here.
pi_eig2 <- V[,1]/sum(V[,1])
```

The size of the first non-unit eigenvalue (\(\lambda_2\)) indicates the rate of approach to equilibrium because it describes how quickly the largest of the vanishing terms (i.e. those with \(\lambda_i<1\)) will approach zero.

This is easiest seen by recalling the eigendecomposition of \(P^n\) can be written as \[P^n\sum_i \lambda_i^n r_i l_i^T\], where \(r_i\), \(l_i\), and \(\lambda_i\) are right eigenvectors, left eigenvectors, and eigenvalues of the matrix \(P\), respectively. So, when \(\lambda_2^n\) approaches 0, the only terms left in the eigendecomposition will be the terms corresponding to the first eigenvalue - i.e. the stationary distribution! As a rough rule of thumb for approximation, taking a number \(x\) less than 1 to the \(n\)’th power will approach 0 if \(n\) is larger than some small multiple of \(1/x\) time-steps (e.g if n > 4/x).

For our example, \(1/\lambda_2\) is approximately 3 generations.

`1/lam[2]`

`[1] 2.928932`

Which implies we will reach equilibrium fairly quickly - much more quickly than the 100 generations we were using for our brute-force soluton to the stationary distribution. As a test, let’s see how \(P^12\) (i.e approx \(4/\lambda_2\)) looks:

`P^12`

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 2.441406e-04 1.677722e-05 1.000000e-12
[2,] 5.314410e-07 1.677722e-05 5.314410e-07
[3,] 4.096000e-09 5.314410e-07 2.441406e-04
```

Indeed - Gary’s mood will return to its stationary distribution relatively quickly after any perturbation!

Thanks to the eigenvector decomposition, to obtain the matrix power \(P^n\) we just need to take the powers of the eigenvalues. Compare the following lines of code to \(P\),\(P^2\), \(P^100\) computed above. And note - this is much faster than naively doing the matrix multipliation over and over to obtain the powers.

`rvec%*%diag(lam)%*%lvec`

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.5 0.4 0.1
[2,] 0.3 0.4 0.3
[3,] 0.2 0.3 0.5
```

`rvec%*%diag(lam^2)%*%lvec`

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.39 0.39 0.22
[2,] 0.33 0.37 0.30
[3,] 0.29 0.35 0.36
```

`rvec%*%diag(lam^100)%*%lvec`

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.3387097 0.3709677 0.2903226
[2,] 0.3387097 0.3709677 0.2903226
[3,] 0.3387097 0.3709677 0.2903226
```

Another approach is to solve the system of linear equations \(\pi^{T}=\pi^{T}P\). These equations are known as the global balance equations, and this approach is introduced in Discrete Markov Chains: Finding the Stationary Distribution via solution of the global balance equations. We include it here for comparison to the eigendecomposition approach on the same example.

```
K<-3
A_basic <- t(diag(rep(1,K))-P)
b_basic <- rep(0,K)
# Now add the constraint
A_constr <- rbind(A_basic,rep(1,K))
b_constr <- c(b_basic,1)
pi_lineq <- t(solve(t(A_constr)%*%A_constr,t(A_constr)%*%b_constr))
pi_lineq%*%P
```

```
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] 0.3387097 0.3709677 0.2903226
```

And the solution checks out!

`sessionInfo()`

```
R version 3.5.2 (2018-12-20)
Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0 (64-bit)
Running under: macOS Mojave 10.14.1
Matrix products: default
BLAS: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/3.5/Resources/lib/libRblas.0.dylib
LAPACK: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/3.5/Resources/lib/libRlapack.dylib
locale:
[1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8
attached base packages:
[1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
other attached packages:
[1] MASS_7.3-51.1
loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
[1] workflowr_1.2.0 Rcpp_1.0.0 digest_0.6.18 rprojroot_1.3-2
[5] backports_1.1.3 git2r_0.24.0 magrittr_1.5 evaluate_0.12
[9] stringi_1.2.4 fs_1.2.6 whisker_0.3-2 rmarkdown_1.11
[13] tools_3.5.2 stringr_1.3.1 glue_1.3.0 xfun_0.4
[17] yaml_2.2.0 compiler_3.5.2 htmltools_0.3.6 knitr_1.21
```

This site was created with R Markdown